JMTQp8lwXL

It's possible folks used that merely as a conversation opener. Sure there was some concern but primarily they wanted to reach out and talk. Concerns for hysteria are valid, but there are more plausible explanations.

1. Browser APIs have subtle differences, or don't always exist in every browser you need to support (e.g, https://caniuse.com/)

2. You'll need at least a transpiler (if writing anything above ES5) and polyfills to solve #1, and if you're diving that far into the JavaScript tooling chain (bundler + babel), might as well choose to use a framework.

I wouldn't leave my job for a "slight" increase in pay, though that's subjective and we haven't defined concrete amounts, other than 300k and 700k in my previous comment, and such a jump (more than double) could not be characterized as slight-- it's substantial.

I need to be paid a risk premium for the new gig having potentially worse colleagues, poorer WLB, or whatever things I find after the interview process. With my current job, I know all of these things. So jumping from 300k, to say, 325k would be unwise and immaterial (8.3%). I might jump for 350, definitely for 400.

You could change the process by being the person who rubber-stamps everyone, regardless of how silly the "process" is. If the person didn't get the PhD algorithm perfect, yet still did a good job, let them in. Anyone who is good enough to be considered for an interview at FB or G is good enough to do the job. That's the truth of the matter. Be the change you want to see-- this somewhat reads as a 'stick-in-mud' approach which may not get your desired outcome.

I told myself I'd be fine at 300k. Now I'm there, and I've picked up more hobbies. Doesn't stop me from looking for new gigs, from time to time. Going super deep into optimizing for one thing might be a good short-term, but bad long-term proposition. A lot of getting to 700k, I imagine, is luck. So long as you're competent, it's right place, right time. You can't force that situation to happen, so it's wasted energy to invest further.

If they already have their budget in mind before the interview process began, it won't buy you any leverage waiting until the very end. They won't care that they burnt the money/time/energy considering your candidacy, even if that costs them more in the long run.

I've ended up wasting a lot of my own time with this strategy. I'll get to the point where they want to extend an offer, I name my number, and then we have an awkward 15 minutes on the phone (e.g., "the VP couldn't ever approve that amount") and then I say I'm not interested 24 hours later.

A simple rule would be only permitting publicly traded companies from being included in an IRA. No private companies. Then, no more 100,000% growth inside of the IRA.

Combining "enterprise" with "vague promise of longevity" is quite the oxymoron. Google should start celling cell service if they want to continue upleveling their doublespeak abilities.

Re-frame the question: if they could have western style liberal democracy without any bloodshed, would they? The answers you're seeing might be tainted with knowing the path to democracy would be painful, and all else equal, that pain is worse than the current power structure.

The nominal return (9%) is:

40000 * (1.09 ^ 70) = $16,669,203.

The first calculation uses 7%. It is the real return. You'll actually have $16m, but the purchasing power would be $4.5m in 2021 dollars.

It's less than the median household income. If you save 15% of the median income for a few years, you could come up with $40k. It's also small relative to $4.5m (0.88%).

The S&P 500, over its history, has returned north of 9% per year.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average...

If you can take a relatively small amount of money (e.g, $40,000-- the price of a new car, which is something the middle class does buy), and invest it for say, 70 years, earning a 7% annual return, you could leave your heirs $4.5 million:

40000 * (1.07 ^ 70) = $4,559,575

If you can buy a car, you can make your beneficiaries multi-millionaires, if you want to.

There's a pervasive sense of stagnant wages, unaffordable homes, etc in first world and developing countries. In China, it's tangping. In America, it's my step sibling having 0 desire to move out of our parents home (e.g., "Millennials kill X" headlines).

Your options are to try very hard, and maybe secure a barely conventional middle class life, or not try. And for people who aren't a fit for the knowledge economy, the second is the optimal choice.

If rents are bi-modal, as one of the parent posters suggests, then how can all properties be valued based on the higher end (e.g, tenants with deep pockets) when not all tenants actually have deep pockets? Shouldn't the entire demand curve be considered when deriving the multiplier and therefore the price of the commercial property?

Not everyone can get the deep pocket tenant. The staggering number of empty store fronts reflects that.

I wouldn't characterize people as being dishonest when they talk about the societal-scale issues posed by platforms like Facebook. It's tough to separate those emotions from a purely analytical discussion of their technology.

I care somewhat about telemetry, but the path to avoiding it must be simple. In VSCodium's case, it's not quite there.

If VSCodium wanted greater market share, the first thing they'd do is clean up the extensions story. Today, there's a laundry list of things you must do to use extensions:

https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/blob/master/DOCS.md#ext...

An IDE with no extensions is quite valueless to me, and resolution isn't frictionless.

There's the opportunity cost to throwing away your organization's knowledge of AWS, though. Everyone will have to learn to do things the bespoke way on your bare metal. So developer productivity could decline.

I'm fairly certain a square manhole cover with a sufficient perimeter would still have no chance of falling into a hole, depending on the diameter of said hole.

It's almost like they're regular people, just like the rest of us.

Having spoken with older generations, I can tell you their concrete concerns of seeing others die or become disabled from polio is 1 or 2 magnitudes more relevant than vague concerns of government or pharmaceutical industry.

Problem is, people today haven't seen the tough stuff. If every third person had Ebola you wouldn't have the luxury of opining on government unease, because your lived reality would look far different. We've had it good. Maybe people complaining about these things is a concrete sign of how much progress we've made.

As I got my first shot, the nurse told me the 2nd one was worse. But like you, I found the cost-benefit analysis compelling, and they likely assumed if I got the first one, I'd probably be a repeat customer.

If someone is TFG (had to look up that abbreviation), talking about the side effects was nowhere near table stakes for their degree of concern and FUD. Had you said nothing, I strongly believe they still wouldn't have anyways.

Twice I've booked airbnb's in buildings where it was not allowed, and I didn't find out until picking up the keys. It's incredibly frustrating (one of building had concierge who gave us hard time). Next time, I'll just go with a traditional hotel to avoid the stress.

Both times, I saw other groups of people with luggage coming in and out. So it likely was impacting multiple units in both buildings.

The pandemic has had me appreciating home cooking more. I still eat out occasionally, but for health reasons, I prefer the home cooked meal. Pandemic lasted long enough to shift my preferences long-term.

If you had a significant other with a similar upper middle class wage, e.g., $220k * 2 = $440k you could probably swing it with more breathing room. You are wise to avoid the burden, in the chance you technically qualify for the mortgage but barely so in the Bay Area (e.g., leaving you house poor). The fact that home affordability requires a HH income in the top 2-3% is, to put it mildly, highly concerning.

It makes the trend of many millennials not trying (a bit of nihilism) seem reasonable. Why aspire for great career success and an above median income, when you can't get much for it? A better life, at that point, is likely to optimize for cheap hobbies and leave the high-pay work stress behind. Honestly, it sounds like a fairly rational decision.

If a seemingly insignificant issue is enough to start a war, perhaps the problems run deeper than the tipping point trigger issue.

Isn't having more power brokers healthier for a democracy than fewer? Today, the existing oligarchs control both the currency and all the laws. This at least fragments that further. The existing oligarchs still get the government; that doesn't change. The new ones get the currency.

> * "This will decentralize ownership of a currency." Nope, it will move from having government control to having oligarchic control.

In most places where oligarchs exist, they largely control their government. That is, they are one in the same, whether this is a formal or informal arrangement. Though they may be different subsets of oligarchs.

I'd be curious to know what folks see as the benefits to a pension that are otherwise not reproducible with a 401(k) and standard brokerage account. The only difference with the brokerage is ERISA protection, which provides protection from creditors in the case of a judgment.

It's important to know some assets avoid probate and go directly to the beneficiary. These include things like a life insurance policy, or a 401(k) with a beneficiary information you can input, and possibly even update online (low friction). The health bill can go to the estate, but the estate also isn't comprised of the retirement account.